Talk:Muncy Creek

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jakec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Muncy Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


Comments

  • The lead doesn't seem to cover the article as a whole, many sections don't appear to get a look-in. It's far too short for an article of this size.
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
  • Be consistent with the use of conversions, e.g. you convert everything the infobox but not later, e.g. in the Hydrology and Watershed sections which are mix-and-match, etc etc.
  • Use the {{convert}} template to give sensible results, i.e. "(690 to 690 m)" is not helpful at all.
  • "a short distance" and "Shortly afterwards" and "receiving very short tributaries" - these aren't quantified in any way, what is "short" in this context?
  • "by scalloped hills." scalloped is badly linked, do you mean scallop-shaped?
  • Previous articles have suitable links for class 2 (etc) rapids.
  • You have a Course section but then I see "Muncy Creek's course winds significantly, but flows generally southwest.[11]" in the Geography section. Is there an unnecessary overlap here?
  • The history section is nothing more then a list of bullet points, if we want this to be prose, please rework it so that it flows as prose.
  • "Muncy Creek" in the caption is in bold for no good reason.
  • "a woolen mill " isn't that a "wool mill", because wouldn't a "woolen (sic) mill" be a mill made of wool?
  • "92 percent of assessed streams..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.
  • "Pennsylvania Science office of The Nature Conservancy" should that office be Office?
  • Generally a lot of work could go into making it more readable and less like a disparate set of bullet point facts. For criteria fails, right now I'm seeing problems with 1a, 1b and 3b, as detailed above.

A few issues so I'm placing it on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There still seem to be several outstanding issues. I'll close the review on 11 July unless these are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@The Rambling Man: It should all be done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply